Wofsy writes: "It rejected the government's blanket ban and recognized what all the lower courts in two separate cases saw: The ban would be devastating to families, organizations, and communities across the United States."

Activists rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. (photo: Getty Images)

fter the Supreme Court ruled today that it would hear arguments on the Muslim ban that a number of lower courts have ruled against, the president claimed “clear victory.”

Hardly.

In fact, the court handed the government a sweeping, but not complete, defeat. It rejected the government’s blanket ban and recognized what all the lower courts in two separate cases saw: The ban would be devastating to families, organizations, and communities across the United States. The court also allowed the government to implement only a narrow version of the ban, explaining that anyone with a “bona fide relationship” to people or organizations in the United States cannot be barred. To view that decision as “clear victory” is wishful thinking.

As a refresher, the court was considering two cases challenging the revised Muslim ban, which had been narrowed after it was swiftly struck down in court: IRAP v. Trumpand Hawaii v. Trump. In both cases, federal district courts concluded that the order was an unconstitutional attempt to implement the Muslim ban President Trump had repeatedly promised on the campaign trail, and both courts issued orders blocking key provisions of the ban. Those orders were upheld by two courts of appeals. In a case argued by the ACLU, the Fourth Circuit in Virginia rejected the ban on people from six overwhelmingly Muslim countries, concluding the president’s order “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The Ninth Circuit blocked that same provision and two others barring refugees, explaining that the president’s order violated federal statutes.

The government wanted to allow the ban to go into effect immediately and completely, arguing that the appellate decisions were wrong. At most, the government contended, the lower court orders halting the ban should only apply to two individuals (one plaintiff in IRAP and one in Hawaii).

The Supreme Court said no. It did not limit the lower court orders to those two individuals alone. It did not limit the orders to the other plaintiffs in the cases. Instead, it told the government that it may not apply the ban to anyone “who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

What does that mean? Well, for starters, anyone with close family in the United States is exempt from the ban. The court explained that having a spouse in the United States would be enough to allow entry, and so would having a son-in-law. Coming to live with a family member is sufficient, and so is coming to visit family on a tourist visa. A large proportion of those who would otherwise be barred by the Muslim ban do have family in this country, and remain protected under the Supreme Court’s order.

Anyone with a relationship with a U.S. entity (like a school, employer, or nonprofit organization) is also exempted from the ban. The court was clear this has to be a “bona fide” relationship — meaning it cannot be manufactured just to get around the ban. But, again, a large segment of those who would otherwise be banned will fall into this category: students coming to study at a university, employees coming for a job, and clients and members of U.S. organizations.

So who is banned? It appears relatively few can be legitimately prohibited under the Supreme Court’s decision: individuals who are abroad and have no connections to family or organizations in the United States. To be clear, the Supreme Court did not say the ban is legal as applied to those individuals. It only allowed the government to implement this limited version of the ban while it considers whether the rest can be upheld at all.

Which brings us to the other action the court took today. It agreed to hear both IRAP and Hawaii in October. That is not particularly surprising. These cases raise exceptionally important legal questions, making them precisely the kinds of cases the Supreme Court is likely to review. We are confident that when the court reviews this unconstitutional order this fall, it will strike it down once and for all, and vindicate both our fundamental commitment to religious neutrality and the responsibility of the courts to serve as an independent check on the exercise of presidential power.

So where is the president’s “clear victory”? Nowhere to be found.

Comments

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

This is good enough for Trump, it was never about "keeping us safe" anyways. He just did what he always does, spray fake-gold paint on something and claim he made it terrific. And since "his" base will swallow anything he says, this ruling serves its political purpose for Trump's Christian White Nationalist administration.

Would e-mail correspondence with a fan of my website, correspondence that developed a genuine friendship, establish a connection? Could I get paid something or be given a very nice birthday gift to help build our friendship? That might be a "clear victory," for me anyway.

The problem of who makes the decisions about bona fide relationships raises its ugly head. The history of the people handing out visas does not give much hope of honesty or integrity. Very few of those people haven't let their power go to their head and they are as intolerant and authoritarian as it is possible to be. All they have to do is decide that someone's documents are fake just because they can, and there is no recourse.

And do people coming to the US to attend a scientific conference have the right to come? Probably not, and even if they did, by the time their scientific association puts pressure on the visa people, the conference will be over.

The 'victory', like all things, appears to be in the eye of the beholder, but nonetheless this can clearly NOT be objectively described as a "sweeping defeat." This is what it means to live in the 'post-truth' era, and apparently even the beloved ACLU is not immune. Every news source I've read about this has identified it as a clear "victory" (partial or otherwise) for Trump, and the ACLU is the only one I've seen to paint it as a "sweeping defeat." So, is it a "clear victory" or a "sweeping defeat?" Jesus wept. As far as I can tell, virtually no one except the ACLU sees it as a "sweeping defeat," and virtually everyone else sees it as at the very least a partial victory for Trump. I think it's fair to say that it is clearly and factually NOT a "sweeping defeat" because that could only be said to have occurred if our benighted SCOTUS had unambiguously shot the travel ban down in flames, as they should have if they were not blinded by their right-wing ideology.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.